How to differentiate the Self from the ego?

I've witnessed my ego as a powerful controller of my intentions/actions, while not mindful of myself. I've reacted/responded to taunts (to my pride), because of my ego, that’s cost me dearly.
I've associated ego to greed, pride, materialism, stubbornness, arrogance, self-destruction and impatience. But it sometimes seems more complex than that… lines aren't always that clear.
What defines the “self”? Personality traits, level of compassion, patience, respect and honour, one holds on to?
What of the wearing jewels and other flamboyant clothes and accessories…. Is that a way for the ego to be flattered through recognition or the drawing of attention, or is it simply a personality trait?
I like to wear a certain leather cowboy hat, but I’m mindful of the fact it may be my ego wanting to draw attention. I don’t think I’m “attached” to it per say, because I naturally don’t care much for material stuff, but I've come to be “fond” of it. Where is the line between personality trait and arrogance drawn?
Until I understand, I wear the hat on rainy days only, so that it has purpose…
I’ve had a hard long look at myself, and realized pride was my main “demon”. I most often mistook pride for honour. My stubbornness to accomplish things on my own, rather than accept help from friends, is the best example that comes to mind. The seriousness by which I addressed my failings another.
I can’t seem to nail it down completely and I still have a rather blurred outline to define between honour and pride?
I have a code of being unwaveringly honest, no matter the cost to other peoples’ feelings? Isn't that a fault?
Are personality traits (liking country music, appreciating a glass of whiskey, etc…) a fault as much as “ego” is? In the sense that they might lead to influenced choices if not in check.
Can I maintain personality traits that define me without letting my ego control my actions/reactions/intentions?
This is where I ask for my fellow Jedi’s help (and this is quite difficult for me).
Would anyone help me define where the self becomes ego (as you see it).

Thank you for your attention.
EarthSpirit

what youre asking is both very simple and totally impossible to answer lol

i mean, we all HAVE an answer, and they all have merit

basically this is one of the eternal questions: WHO AM I?

the question takes a lifetime for most people - or maybe you could say the answer grows as we grow

ive been enjoying and learning a lot from this lecture series

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Zji6xMkOgo


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16WF1jLLyik

its called PERSONALITY AND ITS TRANSFORMATIONS by jordan peterson
these videos are number 8 and 9 in the series but i recommend the whole thing

theyre both a little over an hour
but again, the topic is one that we deal with for our entire lives so even the twenty hours maybe that the entire series would take is completely worth it

i stared here because there if i remember correctly touch on the idea you express about "powerful controller of intentions"

heres one way to look at it

http://www.simplypsychology.org/psyche.html

Id, Ego and Superego
by Saul McLeod twitter icon published 2008

Perhaps Freud's single most enduring and important idea was that the human psyche (personality) has more than one aspect. Freud (1923) saw the psyche structured into three parts (i.e. tripartite), the id, ego and superego, all developing at different stages in our lives.

These are systems, not parts of the brain, or in any way physical.

The id (or it)
The id is the primitive and instinctive component of personality. It consists of all the inherited (i.e. biological) components of personality, including the sex (life) instinct – Eros (which contains the libido), and the aggressive (death) instinct - Thanatos.

The id is the impulsive (and unconscious) part of our psyche which responds directly and immediately to the instincts. The personality of the newborn child is all id and only later does it develop an ego and super-ego.

The id demands immediate satisfaction and when this happens we experience pleasure, when it is denied we experience ‘unpleasure’ or pain. The id is not affected by reality, logic or the everyday world.

On the contrary, it operates on the pleasure principle (Freud, 1920) which is the idea that every wishful impulse should be satisfied immediately, regardless of the consequences.

The id engages in primary process thinking, which is primitive illogical, irrational, and fantasy oriented.

The Ego (or I)
Initially the ego is 'that part of the id which has been modified by the direct influence of the external world' (Freud 1923).

The ego develops in order to mediate between the unrealistic id and the external real world. It is the decision making component of personality. Ideally the ego works by reason whereas the id is chaotic and totally unreasonable.

The ego operates according to the reality principle, working out realistic ways of satisfying the id’s demands, often compromising or postponing satisfaction to avoid negative consequences of society. The ego considers social realities and norms, etiquette and rules in deciding how to behave.

Like the id, the ego seeks pleasure and avoids pain but unlike the id the ego is concerned with devising a realistic strategy to obtain pleasure. Freud made the analogy of the id being a horse while the ego is the rider. The ego is 'like a man on horseback, who has to hold in check the superior strength of the horse' (Freud, 1923, p.15).

Often the ego is weak relative to the head-strong id and the best the ego can do is stay on, pointing the id in the right direction and claiming some credit at the end as if the action were its own.

The ego has no concept of right or wrong; something is good simply if it achieves its end of satisfying without causing harm to itself or to the id. It engages in secondary process thinking, which is rational, realistic, and orientated towards problem solving.

The Superego (or above I)
The superego incorporates the values and morals of society which are learned from one's parents and others. It develops around the age of 3 – 5 during the phallic stage of psychosexual development.

The superego's function is to control the id's impulses, especially those which society forbids, such as sex and aggression. It also has the function of persuading the ego to turn to moralistic goals rather than simply realistic ones and to strive for perfection.

The superego consists of two systems: The conscience and the ideal self. The conscience can punish the ego through causing feelings of guilt. For example, if the ego gives in to the id's demands, the superego may make the person feel bad through guilt.

The ideal self (or ego-ideal) is an imaginary picture of how you ought to be, and represents career aspirations, how to treat other people, and how to behave as a member of society.

Behavior which falls short of the ideal self may be punished by the superego through guilt. The super-ego can also reward us through the ideal self when we behave ‘properly’ by making us feel proud.

If a person’s ideal self is too high a standard, then whatever the person does will represent failure. The ideal self and conscience are largely determined in childhood from parental values and how you were brought up.

References
Freud, S. (1920). Beyond the pleasure principle. SE, 18: 1-64.

Freud, S. (1923). The ego and the id. SE, 19: 1-66.

How to cite this article:
McLeod, S. A. (2008). Id, Ego and Superego. Retrieved from http://www.simplypsychology.org/psyche.html

---

https://www.boundless.com/psychology/textbooks/boundless-psychology-textbook/personality-16/psychodynamic-perspective-on-personality-77/freud-s-psychoanalytic-theory-of-personality-304-12839/

Freud's psychoanalytic theory of personality implicated the structure of the mind, namely the id, ego, and superego, and how conflicts among these constituent parts are resolved in shaping human personality.

The id operates on the pleasure principle. It is regulated by both the ego, which operates on the reality principle, and the superego, which operates on the morality principle.

Conflicts among these structures of the mind appear at each of Freud's five basic stages of psychosexual development: oral, anal, phallic, latency, and genital.

Successful navigation of these natural, internal conflicts will lead to mastery of each developmental stage, and ultimately, to fully-mature, adult personality.

Freud's psychoanalytic theory of personality argued that human behavior was the result of the interaction of three component parts of the mind: the id, ego, and superego. His structural theory placed great importance on the role of unconscious psychological conflicts in shaping behavior and personality. Dynamic interactions among these basic parts of the mind were thought to carry human beings through five psychosexual stages of development: oral, anal, phallic, latency, and genital. Each stage required mastery for a human to develop properly and move on to the next stage successfully. Freud's ideas have since been met with criticism, mostly because of his singular focus on sexuality as the main driver of human personality development.

Freud's Structure of the Human Mind
According to Freud, the human personality was structured into three separate parts: the id, ego, and superego . The id was the most primitive structure, functioned unconsciously, operated on the pleasure principle, and sought instant gratification. The ego was less primitive, functioned in partial consciousness, operated with reason on the reality principle, and regulated the id by satisfying urges only when appropriate. The superego was the most modern structure, functioned consciously, operated on the moral principle, and regulated the id based on social learning and issues of morality. Freud believed that these three basic structures were in constant conflict. The results of these internal struggles throughout childhood were thought to influence the development of adult personality and behavior.


Psychosexual Stages of Development
Freud worked mainly with troubled adults, and delved deeply into their childhood memories during his experiments and examinations . Based on their accounts of experiences and dreams in youth, Freud defined five basic stages of development that he believed to be crucial in the formation of adult personality. He called his idea the psychosexual theory of development, with each stage directly related to a different physical center of pleasure. At each stage, the child is presented with a conflict between biological drives and social expectations. His/her ability to resolve these internal conflicts determined future coping and functioning ability as a fully-mature adult.

1. Oral Stage (birth to 1.5 years of age): The oral stage's major pleasure center is the oral cavity. A baby's first experience with much of the physical world is through the mouth. The goal of this stage was to develop the proper amount of sucking, eating, biting, and talking, which aid in early development steps such as breast feeding and speaking. Children who did not master this stage would develop an oral fixation that might lead to drinking, smoking, and nail-biting or other mouth-based aggressive behaviors.

2. Anal Stage (1.5-3 years of age): The anal stage's major pleasure center is the anal cavity. One of the first impulses that a baby must learn to control is his/her excretion system. The goal of this stage is mastery of this system, which usually culminates in proper toilet training. Children who do not adequately master this stage or were harshly punished during the toilet training process developed an anal fixation. This might lead to anal retentive or anal expulsive personalities in which one is overly tidy, and the other overly messy.

3. Phallic Stage (3-5 years of age): The phallic stage's major pleasure center is the main genital organ in either boys or girls. The child is thought to develop his/her first sexual desires which are directed at the closest known adult: the opposite sex parent. Boys develop the Oedipal complex with affection for their mothers while girls developed the Elektra complex with affection for their fathers. The goal of this stage is to master this internal conflict and move toward more appropriate sexual desires. Children who struggle here develop phallic fixations which affect their relationships with their parents adversely.

4. Latency Stage (5-12 years of age): The latency stage's major pleasure centers are dormant sexual feelings for the opposite sex. Here, the child consolidates character habits developed in the previous three stages. Successful mastery in each of these stages is necessary for a mature, adult personality to develop before puberty. If the child does not learn to derive pleasure from external sources such as schooling or friendships, he/she may develop neuroses or fixations on socially unacceptable activities.

5. Genital Stage (12 years - adulthood): The genital stage's main pleasure center is the surge of sexual hormones in the body during puberty. Adolescents must establish successful relationships with peers in order to master this stage. Young adults who do not transition from solitary, infantile sexuality to consensual, mature sexuality develop fixations on sex and tend to have unsuccessful relationships.



Source: Boundless. “Freud's Psychoanalytic Theory of Personality.” Boundless Psychology. Boundless, 21 Jan. 2015. Retrieved 23 Apr. 2015 from https://www.boundless.com/psychology/textbooks/boundless-psychology-textbook/personality-16/psychodynamic-perspective-on-personality-77/freud-s-psychoanalytic-theory-of-personality-304-12839/

Thank you for all this content. I've much enjoyed learning of Freuds view of the subject.
Do you agree to all of Freuds theories?
Is that what you consider it all boils down to?
Is there any other popular views to consider?

lol this is just the beginning

freud hit on a lot of truth
he gets ridiculed a lot but the bulk of the ideas he put forward are pretty much taken for granted at this point
still, theres a lot more to the picture
i am by no means an expert
i am really really interested in the subjects of existence and growth and empowerment and basically all of the ideas that the JEDI "archetype" represents to me
and this is a subject, or maybe a group of related subjects, which go back to possibly the big bang lol
or maybe the first form of life to develop a nervous system- or perhaps the emergence of mammals - or just primates? or ...

anyway-the cultural myths of "prehistory" and the religious doctrines from india to tibet to the the african plains and the australian outback and the natives of mexico and the americas ad the shinto of japan and the various philosophies of china (lot of taoism here at totjo) are as relevant to the discussion as any ivy league doctors lecture or dissertations
but moving on to some of the more modern ideas..

like i said, the question you ask is THE QUESTION of human existence lol

on that note,

this link gives a great and easy to understand overview and imo - start here

https://prezi.com/aayvpjf0fhge/six-principles-of-existentialism/

EXISTENTIALISM

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentialism

Existentialism is a philosophical way of thinking that is very different from other philosophical ideas. It sees humans, with will and consciousness, as being in a world of objects which do not have those qualities. The fact that humans are conscious of their mortality, and must make decisions about their life is what existentialism is all about.[1]

It was started by the Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard (1813–1855).[1] As it developed in the 20th century, it was an atheistic philosophy, although existentialism's founder, Søren Kierkegaard, was a deeply religious man. Most of its main thinkers and writers were in Europe. Sartre, for example, spent most of the Second World War in a German prison camp, reading Heidegger. When he came out he gave a lecture Existentialism and Humanism, which is easier to read than his later work

Many religions and philosophies (ways of thinking about the world) say that human life has a meaning (or a purpose). But people who believe in existentialism think that the world and human life have no meaning unless people give them meanings: "existence precedes [is before] essence". This means that we find ourselves existing in the world, and then we give ourselves meaning, or 'essence'. As Sartre said, "We are condemned to be free".[2] This means that we have no choice but to choose, and that we have full responsibility for our choices.

Existentialists believe that our human essence or nature (way of being in the world) is entirely and simply existence (being in the world). More simply put, the 'essence' of a human, or what makes a human a 'human', is not due to 'nature' or uncontrollable circumstances; rather, human 'essence' is really just what we choose to make it. This means that the only nature we as humans have is the nature we make for ourselves. As a result of this, existentialists think that the actions or choices that a person makes are very important. They believe that every person has to decide for themselves what is right and wrong, and what is good and bad.

People who believe in existentialism ask questions like "what is it like to be a human (a person) in the world?" and "how can we understand human freedom (what it means for a person to be free)?" Existentialism is very often connected with negative emotions, such as anxiety (worrying), dread (a very strong fear), and mortality (awareness of our own death).

Existentialism is different from Nihilism, but there is a similarity. Nihilists believe that human life does not have a meaning (or a purpose) at all; existentialism says that people must choose their own purpose.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentialism#The_Other_and_the_Look

Existence precedes essence

A central proposition of Existentialism is that existence precedes essence, which means that the most important consideration for individuals is that they are individuals—independently acting and responsible, conscious beings ("existence")—rather than what labels, roles, stereotypes, definitions, or other preconceived categories the individuals fit ("essence"). The actual life of the individuals is what constitutes what could be called their "true essence" instead of there being an arbitrarily attributed essence others use to define them. Thus, human beings, through their own consciousness, create their own values and determine a meaning to their life.[21] Although it was Sartre who explicitly coined the phrase, similar notions can be found in the thought of existentialist philosophers such as Heidegger, and Kierkegaard:


It is often claimed in this context that people define themselves, which is often perceived as stating that they can wish to be something—anything, a bird, for instance—and then be it. According to most existentialist philosophers, however, this would constitute an inauthentic existence. Instead, the phrase should be taken to say that people are (1) defined only insofar as they act and (2) that they are responsible for their actions. For example, someone who acts cruelly towards other people is, by that act, defined as a cruel person. Furthermore, by this action of cruelty, such persons are themselves responsible for their new identity (cruel persons). This is as opposed to their genes, or human nature, bearing the blame.

As Sartre writes in his work Existentialism is a Humanism: "... man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world—and defines himself afterwards." Of course, the more positive, therapeutic aspect of this is also implied: A person can choose to act in a different way, and to be a good person instead of a cruel person. Here it is also clear that since humans can choose to be either cruel or good, they are, in fact, neither of these things essentially.


The Absurd

The notion of the Absurd contains the idea that there is no meaning in the world beyond what meaning we give it. This meaninglessness also encompasses the amorality or "unfairness" of the world. This contrasts with the notion that "bad things don't happen to good people"; to the world, metaphorically speaking, there is no such thing as a good person or a bad person; what happens happens, and it may just as well happen to a "good" person as to a "bad" person.[23]

Because of the world's absurdity, at any point in time, anything can happen to anyone, and a tragic event could plummet someone into direct confrontation with the Absurd.

It is in relation to the concept of the devastating awareness of meaninglessness that Albert Camus claimed that "there is only one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide" in his The Myth of Sisyphus.

Facticity

Facticity is a concept defined by Sartre in Being and Nothingness as the in-itself, of which humans are in the mode of not being. This can be more easily understood when considering it in relation to the temporal dimension of past: one's past is what one is, in the sense that it co-constitutes oneself. However, to say that one is only one's past would be to ignore a significant part of reality (the present and the future), while saying that one's past is only what one was, would entirely detach it from oneself now. A denial of one's own concrete past constitutes an inauthentic lifestyle, and the same goes for all other kinds of facticity (having a body—e.g. one that doesn't allow a person to run faster than the speed of sound—identity, values, etc.).[30]

Facticity is both a limitation and a condition of freedom. It is a limitation in that a large part of one's facticity consists of things one couldn't have chosen (birthplace, etc.), but a condition in the sense that one's values most likely depend on it. However, even though one's facticity is "set in stone" (as being past, for instance), it cannot determine a person: The value ascribed to one's facticity is still ascribed to it freely by that person. As an example, consider two men, one of whom has no memory of his past and the other remembers everything. They have both committed many crimes, but the first man, knowing nothing about this, leads a rather normal life while the second man, feeling trapped by his own past, continues a life of crime, blaming his own past for "trapping" him in this life. There is nothing essential about his committing crimes, but he ascribes this meaning to his past.

However, to disregard one's facticity when, in the continual process of self-making, one projects oneself into the future,that would be to put oneself in denial of oneself, and would thus be inauthentic. In other words, the origin of one's projection must still be one's facticity, though in the mode of not being it (essentially). Another aspect of facticity is that it entails angst, both in the sense that freedom "produces" angst when limited by facticity, and in the sense that the lack of the possibility of having facticity to "step in" for one to take responsibility for something one has done also produces angst.

Another aspect of existential freedom is that one can change one's values. Thus, one is responsible for one's values, regardless of society's values. The focus on freedom in existentialism is related to the limits of the responsibility one bears as a result of one's freedom: the relationship between freedom and responsibility is one of interdependency, and a clarification of freedom also clarifies that for which one is responsible

Authenticity

Many noted existentialist writers consider the theme of authentic existence important. Authentic existence involves the idea that one has to "create oneself" and then live in accordance with this self. What is meant by authenticity is that in acting, one should act as oneself, not as "one" acts or as "one's genes" or any other essence requires. The authentic act is one that is in accordance with one's freedom. Of course, as a condition of freedom is facticity, this includes one's facticity, but not to the degree that this facticity can in any way determine one's choices (in the sense that one could then blame one's background for making the choice one made). The role of facticity in relation to authenticity involves letting one's actual values come into play when one makes a choice (instead of, like Kierkegaard's Aesthete, "choosing" randomly), so that one also takes responsibility for the act instead of choosing either-or without allowing the options to have different values.[33]

In contrast to this, the inauthentic is the denial to live in accordance with one's freedom. This can take many forms, from pretending choices are meaningless or random, through convincing oneself that some form of determinism is true, to a sort of "mimicry" where one acts as "one should." How "one" should act is often determined by an image one has of how one such as oneself (say, a bank manager, lion tamer, prostitute, etc.) acts. This image usually corresponds to some sort of social norm, but this does not mean that all acting in accordance with social norms is inauthentic: The main point is the attitude one takes to one's own freedom and responsibility, and the extent to which one acts in accordance with this freedom.

The Other and the Look

The Other (when written with a capital "O") is a concept more properly belonging to phenomenology and its account of intersubjectivity. However, the concept has seen widespread use in existentialist writings, and the conclusions drawn from it differ slightly from the phenomenological accounts. The experience of the Other is the experience of another free subject who inhabits the same world as a person does. In its most basic form, it is this experience of the Other that constitutes intersubjectivity and objectivity. To clarify, when one experiences someone else, and this Other person experiences the world (the same world that a person experiences)--only from "over there"--the world itself is constituted as objective in that it is something that is "there" as identical for both of the subjects; a person experiences the other person as experiencing the same things. This experience of the Other's look is what is termed the Look (sometimes the Gaze).[34]

While this experience, in its basic phenomenological sense, constitutes the world as objective, and oneself as objectively existing subjectivity (one experiences oneself as seen in the Other's Look in precisely the same way that one experiences the Other as seen by him, as subjectivity), in existentialism, it also acts as a kind of limitation of freedom. This is because the Look tends to objectify what it sees. As such, when one experiences oneself in the Look, one doesn't experience oneself as nothing (no thing), but as something. Sartre's own example of a man peeping at someone through a keyhole can help clarify this: at first, this man is entirely caught up in the situation he is in; he is in a pre-reflexive state where his entire consciousness is directed at what goes on in the room. Suddenly, he hears a creaking floorboard behind him, and he becomes aware of himself as seen by the Other. He is thus filled with shame for he perceives himself as he would perceive someone else doing what he was doing, as a Peeping Tom. The Look is then co-constitutive of one's facticity.

Another characteristic feature of the Look is that no Other really needs to have been there: It is quite possible that the creaking floorboard was nothing but the movement of an old house; the Look isn't some kind of mystical telepathic experience of the actual way the other sees one (there may also have been someone there, but he could have not noticed that the person was there). It is only one's perception of the way another might perceive him.

Angst and Dread

"Existential angst", sometimes called dread, anxiety, or anguish, is a term that is common to many existentialist thinkers. It is generally held to be a negative feeling arising from the experience of human freedom and responsibility. The archetypal example is the experience one has when standing on a cliff where one not only fears falling off it, but also dreads the possibility of throwing oneself off. In this experience that "nothing is holding me back", one senses the lack of anything that predetermines one to either throw oneself off or to stand still, and one experiences one's own freedom.[23]

It can also be seen in relation to the previous point how angst is before nothing, and this is what sets it apart from fear that has an object. While in the case of fear, one can take definitive measures to remove the object of fear, in the case of angst, no such "constructive" measures are possible. The use of the word "nothing" in this context relates both to the inherent insecurity about the consequences of one's actions, and to the fact that, in experiencing freedom as angst, one also realizes that one is fully responsible for these consequences. There is nothing in people (genetically, for instance) that acts in their stead—that they can blame if something goes wrong. Therefore, not every choice is perceived as having dreadful possible consequences (and, it can be claimed, human lives would be unbearable if every choice facilitated dread). However, this doesn't change the fact that freedom remains a condition of every action.

Despair

Despair, in existentialism, is generally defined as a loss of hope.[35] More specifically, it is a loss of hope in reaction to a breakdown in one or more of the defining qualities of one's self or identity. If a person is invested in being a particular thing, such as a bus driver or an upstanding citizen, and then finds his being-thing compromised, he would normally be found in state of despair — a hopeless state. For example, a singer who loses the ability to sing may despair if she has nothing else to fall back on—nothing to rely on for her identity. She finds herself unable to be what defined her being.

What sets the existentialist notion of despair apart from the conventional definition is that existentialist despair is a state one is in even when he isn't overtly in despair. So long as a person's identity depends on qualities that can crumble, he is in perpetual despair—and as there is, in Sartrean terms, no human essence found in conventional reality on which to constitute the individual's sense of identity, despair is a universal human condition. As Kierkegaard defines it in Either/Or: "Let each one learn what he can; both of us can learn that a person’s unhappiness never lies in his lack of control over external conditions, since this would only make him completely unhappy.

Existentialists oppose definitions of human beings as primarily rational, and, therefore, oppose positivism and rationalism. Existentialism asserts that people actually make decisions based on subjective meaning rather than pure rationality. The rejection of reason as the source of meaning is a common theme of existentialist thought, as is the focus on the feelings of anxiety and dread that we feel in the face of our own radical freedom and our awareness of death. Kierkegaard advocated rationality as means to interact with the objective world (e.g. in the natural sciences), but when it comes to existential problems, reason is insufficient: "Human reason has boundaries".[37]

Like Kierkegaard, Sartre saw problems with rationality, calling it a form of "bad faith", an attempt by the self to impose structure on a world of phenomena — "the Other" — that is fundamentally irrational and random. According to Sartre, rationality and other forms of bad faith hinder people from finding meaning in freedom. To try to suppress their feelings of anxiety and dread, people confine themselves within everyday experience, Sartre asserts, thereby relinquishing their freedom and acquiescing to being possessed in one form or another by "the Look" of "the Other" (i.e. possessed by another person — or at least one's idea of that other person).

viktor frankyl was a jew in a concentration camp and also an existentialist and a psychologiest

http://www.viktorfrankl.org/e/logotherapy.html

this is what i love about existentialism

by Alexander Batthyany

The development of Logotherapy and Existential Analysis dates back to the 1930s. On the basis of Sigmund Freud's Psychoanalysis and Alfred Adler's Individual Psychology the psychiatrist and neurologist Viktor Emil Frankl (1905-1997) laid down the foundations of a new and original approach which he first published in 1938. Logotherapy/Existential Analysis, sometimes called the "Third Viennese School of Psychotherapy", is an internationally acknowledged and empirically based meaning-centered approach to psychotherapy.

In Logotherapy/Existential Analysis (LTEA) the search for a meaning in life is identified as the primary motivational force in human beings.

Frankl's approach is based on three philosophical and psychological concepts:
Freedom of Will
Will to Meaning, and
Meaning in Life

¦ FREEDOM OF WILL
According to LTEA humans are not fully subject to conditions but are basically free to decide and capable of taking their stance towards internal (psychological) and external (biological and social) conditions. Freedom is here defined as the space of shaping one's own life within the limits of the given possibilities. This freedom derives from the spiritual dimension of the person, which is understood as the essentially human realm, over and above the dimensions of body and of psyche. As spiritual persons, humans are not just reacting organisms but autonomous beings capable of actively shaping their lives.

The freedom of the human person plays an important role in psychotherapy, in that it provides clients with room for autonomous action even in the face of somatic or psychological illness. And it just that resource which enables clients, in the context of the techniques of Paradoxical Intention and Dereflection, to cope with their symptoms and to regain control and self-determination.

¦ WILL TO MEANING
Human beings are not only free, but most importantly they are free to something - namely, to achieve goals and purposes. The search for meaning is seen as the primary motivation of humans. When a person cannot realize his or her "Will to Meaning" in their lives they will experience an abysmal sensation of meaninglessness and emptiness. The frustration of the existential need for meaningful goals will give rise to aggression, addiction, depression and suicidality, and it may engender or increase psychosomatic maladies and neurotic disorders.

Logotherapy/Existential Analysis assists clients in perceiving and removing those factors that hinder them in pursuing meaningful goals in their lives. Clients are sensitized for the perception of meaning potentialities; however, they are not offered specific meanings. Rather, they are guided and assisted in the realization of those meaning possibilities they have detected themselves.

¦ MEANING IN LIFE
LTEA is based on the idea that meaning is an objective reality, as opposed to a mere illusion arising within the perceptional apparatus of the observer. This is in contrast to the so-called "Occupational and Recreational Therapies" which are primarily concerned with diverting the clients' attention from disturbed or disturbing modes of experience.

According to LTEA humans are called upon, on the grounds of their freedom and responsibility, to bring forth the possible best in themselves and in the world, by perceiving and realizing the meaning of the moment in each and every situation. In this context it must be stressed that these meaning potentials, although objective in nature, are linked to the specific situation and person, and are therefore continually changing. Thus LTEA does not declare or offer some general meaning of life. Rather, clients are aided in achieving the openness and flexibility that will enable them to shape their day-to-day lives in a meaningful manner.

i know this is a lot - sorry

what youve asked is (to my way of thinking) the first fundamental question of life;
"who am i, really?"

because this can also include the question "what is my purpose?"

these are questions a lot of people have addressed in a lot of different ways and many many of them worth understanding

other big questions are "is/are there a god/s?" and basically "now what?" lol after that i.e. if there is/are gods "what does it/do they want from me?"

"who is my family? who are my people?"

after that things get a little easier, philosophically

but pragmatocally we then get in to the nuts and bolts of how to actually live up to what we belive
and thats definitely NOT always easy lol
not at all

this is just my way of responding though and im no teacher and im no wise man

OB1Shinobi wrote: i know this is a lot - sorry

what youve asked is (to my way of thinking) the first fundamental question of life;
"who am i, really?"

because this can also include the question "what is my purpose?"

these are questions a lot of people have addressed in a lot of different ways and many many of them worth understanding

other big questions are "is/are there a god/s?" and basically "now what?" lol after that i.e. if there is/are gods "what does it/do they want from me?"

"who is my family? who are my people?"

after that things get a little easier, philosophically

but pragmatically we then get in to the nuts and bolts of how to actually live up to what we belive
and thats definitely NOT always easy lol
not at all

this is just my way of responding though and im no teacher and im no wise man

forgot "what is the nature of reality?"

thats a good one too

EarthSpirit wrote: What defines the “self”? Personality traits, level of compassion, patience, respect and honour, one holds on to?

I think the trick is to develop a more refined relationship with ones feelings and emotions - done by various means including meditation and exploring different types and intensities of emotions etc and then maintained by mindfulness which I tend to view this as equipoising the mind. Generally though, after achieving it, it tends to equipoise itself under stable condition's. This then could be seen to release one from being a victim of the subconscious or non-conscious processing and decision making and then your energy can become more able to have a richer view, but 'it' could be seen as a structure of perception, decision making and action. Which I tend to link back to refer to the Temple's Tenet's of Focus, Knowledge and Wisdom.

EarthSpirit wrote: What of the wearing jewels and other flamboyant clothes and accessories…. Is that a way for the ego to be flattered through recognition or the drawing of attention, or is it simply a personality trait?
I like to wear a certain leather cowboy hat, but I’m mindful of the fact it may be my ego wanting to draw attention. I don’t think I’m “attached” to it per say, because I naturally don’t care much for material stuff, but I've come to be “fond” of it. Where is the line between personality trait and arrogance drawn?

Assessing ones actions for me ends up focusing on the actual intention, and from that it becomes about what you'd want to achieve in its regard and how beneficial/detrimental it really is. The most important part IMO is being true to yourself and being strong to do what you've worked out you really think is right - because I find if a person lies to themselves and keeps sabotaging their progress, then it really is going backwards in spiritual development because all that trust must be rebuilt with your subconscious to even get back to the starting point IMO.

So if your wearing them because they make you feel good - look at what it is that makes you feel good... the wearing or the being seen!? I'm not saying one is right or one is wrong, but they are different IMO. If its about being seen a certain way, then what reactions do you prefer and why! These are questions you could ask yourself to determine whether it represents you enriching your experience of living in a personal way (personality), or you trying to leverage other people to personify you instead (which could potentially be seen as arrogant perhaps).

EarthSpirit wrote: I’ve had a hard long look at myself, and realized pride was my main “demon”. I most often mistook pride for honour. My stubbornness to accomplish things on my own, rather than accept help from friends, is the best example that comes to mind. The seriousness by which I addressed my failings another.
I can’t seem to nail it down completely and I still have a rather blurred outline to define between honour and pride?

I'm not sure, but perhaps honour is given by others and pride is given to others?

EarthSpirit wrote: I have a code of being unwaveringly honest, no matter the cost to other peoples’ feelings? Isn't that a fault?

I'd say it depends on the nature of the communication. A formal dialog can be brutal as its efficient to be so, but informal communication is not so much about the content of the message but the relationship between people trying to share the message - in that regard ignoring other peoples feelings might be less then ideal, but I agree honesty is really really important. It's a tough one to answer because it would depend a lot on individual circumstances I reckon!!!

EarthSpirit wrote: Are personality traits (liking country music, appreciating a glass of whiskey, etc…) a fault as much as “ego” is? In the sense that they might lead to influenced choices if not in check.
Can I maintain personality traits that define me without letting my ego control my actions/reactions/intentions?

Habit's can be relaxing because the mind can rest a little working in familiar territory I think.... but for me it goes back to where I started and how perception (the action of perception), as a 'vehicle' of self IMO is an effective basis to choose. Some spiritual people strip away all material things to exercise a pure form of self but maybe the problem with attachments is not the attachment, but just the way people abuse them. So for me its about intention and mindfulness... sort of like how being uncluttered in mind can make way for new experiences - an open mind...... but that it does not have to mean I cannot have a neat stack of beverages in the bar fridge, all I'd need is a reason to have a drink
:lol:

I hope that helps, they are interesting questions!!!!

Your question would take years to explain.

The simple answer as some people have already pointed out is mediation to gain awreness of were your thought are coming from.

The more complex answer is studying what the ego is. In short the ego is your animal instincts which are built for a different world than the one you live in now. Built for a tribal existence you wrestle with behaviors that a no longer optimal for the modern age you live in now. There are many good books on the subject that will you help understand when you're being controlled by your ego and most of the time you are.

For an answer as to why you were a cowboy hat may I suggest Spent: Sex, Evolution, and Consumer Behavior by Geoffrey Miller

Thank you to all for sharing your thoughts with me.
I would like to mention I'm usually quite shy when wearing this hat of mine.
It's a trivial thing and I may be over-thinking it, but I can't see bad or good in wearing it.
I'll have a lot to meditate on before going to sleep tonight.
Thank you again for all your insight.